RE: Shipping fat jar?

From: Kevin Menard (kmenar..ervprise.com)
Date: Wed Jan 03 2007 - 13:04:01 EST

  • Next message: Kevin Menard: "Cayenne 2.0.2"

    I always liked having a fat JAR just because I didn't have to guess what
    Cayenne's dependencies were. Even if I can dump everything into
    WEB-INF, it's nice to know to whom each dependency belongs.

    Having said that, I won't cry over spilt milk if it's gone. Especially
    since I've migrated to maven and have a whole new lot of things to cry
    about :-(

    -- 
    Kevin
    

    > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:andru..bjectstyle.org] > Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 10:52 AM > To: cayenne-de..ncubator.apache.org > Subject: Shipping fat jar? > > I am considering whether we should stop shipping the "fat" > cayenne.jar in 3.0 (would've been called > cayenne-server-deps.jar according to the new naming > convention). The original motivation for it goes back to the > days when full CLASSPATH had to be specified when running > "javac" and "java" from command line. So it saved quite a bit > of typing. With Ant, Eclipse and war format this seems obsolete. > Instead I thought we might include a minimal set of runtime > dependencies in the "lib/third-party" folder. > > Anybody thinks it is a bad idea to get rid of the fat jar? > > Andrus >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Jan 03 2007 - 13:07:52 EST